Notes and Feedback on Energy Literacy Draft (LCF)

I spent some time this morning typing up my notes/thoughts on yesterday's meeting. They are rough and rambling - apologies! but wanted to get them out while they are fresh in my mind. Thank you to Matthew for organizing the group and once again it was a pleasure meeting and working with all of you yesterday. Hope to see many of you at NSTA!

Lynn Farrin
Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance
Augusta, Maine
lfarrin@mmsa.org
207.287.3776



Notes:
Comments: about the “About this Guide” portion of the doc:

Paragraph 3: “Used in formal educational environments, …”
Comment: If this guide is to be used outside of K-12 it should say so (P-16?). While I know that this guide is intended to strengthen energy education I also would like something to be said before that this guide is a coordinated national effort aimed at addressing major energy challenges facing our country… and then perhaps spell out the link to education. Might this plan also be used to inform policy? And I’m betting that understandings could be developed outside of K-12 education – I wouldn’t want people that don’t necessarily see themselves in the “formal education” arena to stop reading once they got to “formal education environments.”

Paragraph 4: last sentence – “to foster a culture of energy efficiency in business and throughout our communities.” I worry about the use of “energy efficiency” here – “efficiency” means something very specific – is this too narrow? Do we want something more global like conscious energy use or something tied to decisions? To me, efficiency doesn’t include curtailing use and that sort of thing.

Under “What is Energy Literacy?”
The last bullet “continues to learn about energy throughout his or her life” - is very different than the others but I like its spirit. I’m wondering if in this idea something about the idea that acknowledges energy needs change and the need for reassessment / reevaluation of energy use/role of energy in their lives?

Under “Energy Literacy is a Part of Social and Natural Science Literacy”
The last sentence says “found in National Education Standards” – there are several “national standards” – to which are you referring? If it is capitalized to me, it means NSES. I do believe the doc has drawn upon the NRC’s (NSES), AAAS (Benchmarks), and the new frameworks coming out – and these are just the science ones. The next part of the sentence says “in nearly all academic disciplines” so I think you’re also saying other content areas? I’d not capitalize “National” if you’re referring to standards globally.

Under “Why Should We Care About Energy Literacy?”
Last bullets – not sure why they are separated. It seems that if we’re on a “sustainable energy-use path” that we’d not have harmful emissions – but maybe that’s just me? If the last bullet is needed, it could be strengthened to “eliminate” rather than “reduce” – and I’d nix “potential”

2nd paragraph – “without a basic understanding of … generation” – someone pointed out that this is very specific to electricity. Perhaps something more global like “converted for use” – to take into account refineries and such?

In the glossary – define “natural science” – does it include environmental science (I’d say yes) and define “standards” – these I think are education standards – to people outside of education this might not be clear.

Notes about the Essential Principles:
I spent a lot of time thinking about these essential principles and I would agree with Art’s group that there are too many and some pull apart ideas rather than unify. I think the general feeling in the room was that we want this document to convey the unifying aspects of energy which I think Art’s group (and others I’m suspecting in the room) have a good start on. I’ve jotted those here and included some comments:

(1): We need energy (perhaps this idea could be stated differently – to be less “human” centered – see note below about energy being a unifier.)

(2): We get energy from a limited number of sources

(3): Decisions are made about energy’s use and how and where we get it. (these change as new technologies /demands on energy change)

(4): Individuals have skills and knowledge to choose their and society’s use.

One that I think is missing in their list is something about energy being a unifier – it’s a driver for everything that happens in physical and natural systems – it is in this way that we “need” it. Maybe this idea is replaces or gets under the first idea “We need energy.” Many of the ideas listed under the EP in our hard copy “Energy is a measurable quantity that follows physical laws” would fit. When I look back at the fundamental principals under the old “Energy is a measurable quantity that follows physical laws its seems that the key ideas can be boiled down to something like this:
• Energy changes forms (some more “usable” than others)
• Energy can be transferred / transformed – it is through these transfers and transformations that “things happen”
• Some clear way of saying that amount of energy is constant but at the same time what goes in doesn’t equal what comes out (but energy isn’t lost! – it dissipates and is not useful to do intended task).
• Energy can be/is stored (molecularly – food, batteries, etc.)
• Need some statement about what energy IS not what it isn’t.

This category seems to be about the fundamental concepts about the nature of energy and how it behaves. I think there are far too many details in the statements that are listed currently. These “details” are ones that get “unpacked” later by a teacher perhaps? The standards that were pulled out are I believe those at the 9-12 level – which makes them too detailed for K-12. More global idea statements would give educators the opportunity (where appropriate) to include the concepts in grade appropriate ways. (?) It is in the spirit of this comment that I wouldn’t call out/ list separately the ideas about the way thermal energy is transferred (this would be something a teacher would unpack at the appropriate grade span), the way energy can be transferred (again the language of chemical and nuclear reactions, light waves, etc. seems specific to high school), and so on.

Old Essential Principle “Energy from the sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth System” matches nicely with Art’s (2) principle: We get energy from a limited number of sources. Key ideas that might be put under this one might be:
• Energy from the sun is the primary source (and/or the sun’s connection to other sources e.g. fossil fuels, wind, water cycle, currents)
• Internal sources of energy (not “sun based)
• Renewable and nonrenewable (definition and examples)
• Pros and cons of renewable/nonrenewable (impact on environment, cost, availability, safety)
• Delivery/distribution (and not just of electricity) – maybe this fits with pros and cons?

As they stand now – fundamental ideas B-H feel like they are connected to this Essential principle but their connections are very specific.

Old Essential Principle “Energy transfers and transformations are central to living organisms and ecosystems”
It puzzled me as to why a whole section was devoted to energy in living things context. Aren’t transfer and transformation ideas already “covered” – in essential principle #1? Perhaps language that specifically says something to make sure living systems is included would be wise but I think it’s too specific to pull them out in a separate essential principle. Including this as a separate essential principle feels like it undoes the unifying part of energy. On the other hand, I do know that much of the research on student learning indicates students have a difficult time identifying/recognizing the role of energy /energy transfers and transformations in living systems –

Old Essential Principle “various sources of energy can be used to power human activities and often this energy must be transferred from source to destination.”
Many of the ideas here feel like they could be put under the second EP – the one about sources. I started to think about this one as ideas about “energy transfers and transformations / use by humans to accomplish a specific or desired task” but I think many go back to fitting best under “sources” and issues/ideas about how energy is derived from sources. E-F are specific to electricity – distribution and generation? aren’t these really large scale transfers/transformations and maybe fit elsewhere in an EP already noted earlier?

Old Essential Principle “The amount of energy humans society uses depends on many factors and can be reduced in many ways.” This EP implies that 1) we use too much energy (which we do) since it says “can be reduced.” Could this be reworded somehow - when I read this EP a clear notion of what the principle is intending doesn’t jump out – is this about conserving? Managing our energy sources? Using them efficiently? How people use energy? My thinking aloud in trying to sift out what it might mean from the fundamental ideas below is as follows:

• Fundamental idea A - two meanings of conservation – I’d elect to use it one way in the document and put this way in the glossary rather than spell it out as a key idea?
• Fundamental idea B – really like the spirit of “using energy for a given purpose more efficiently or reducing use all together” I also like the idea in here about managing energy resources – could it possibly be expanded for the management to include impact on environment / costs – are these not also a factor in management?
• C and D – very similar - Using less and using energy efficiently / E, F, G define efficiency (combine?)

This is as far as I got in my thinking – as I dig in more, I’ll add to my notes!

My biggest suggestion would be to use the existing standards to help identify ideas but then to sift out the key idea each is saying – what do they really boil down to? It seems there’s a lot of overlap and sometimes too much specificity. I would keep in the forefront the focus of energy as a unifier – I think that will speak volumes for the importance of being “energy literate.”